That did not made sense. You are exaggerating the work you did on IPv6.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 5:49 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com" target="_blank">bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">><br>
> Your mistake here is the illusion that you can take this decision for<br>
> others.<br>
> For example me, I want to use IPv9 in my country and for this I am ready to<br>
> pay the following processing cost for each packet:<br>
><br>
> IPv4 packet comes in.<br>
> I remove the header.<br>
> I replace it with a IPv9 header.<br>
> I route the packet.<br>
> (and vice versa)<br>
><br>
> Details are in the paper (presented in the original post). This is just an<br>
> example of what I want to do... Who can say no and why?<br>
><br>
<br>
</div> You are certainly free to do as you have outlined. Just not be surprised<br>
when:<br>
<br>
a) things don't work as planned, since its not just the header that is involved<br>
and<br>
b) your definition of IPv9 (or pick something else - say IPv6) is unlike the<br>
agreed on standard - via the IETF, which has perview of the IP specs.<br>
and<br>
c) you pass and enforce legal constraints to force all communications that crosses<br>
your countries political borders to cross through your address translators only<br>
to find yourselves isolated from the rest of the world.<br>
<br>
<br>
Please proceed with your implementation plans and report back on your success.<br>
the thousands of others who have been down this path before -MIGHT- have missed<br>
something that is crystal clear to you and you alone.<br>
<br>
/bill<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><a href="http://www.content-based-science.org" target="_blank">http://www.content-based-science.org</a><br><br>